As the father figure of modern Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew built a state which many rulers elsewhere in the world came to envy. Even the Chinese sent delegations south to see how the Lion City had done it. However, the admiration was based on a misconception. There is a “Singapore model” but it is hard to see it being applied in a comprehensive manner elsewhere – even the other great East Asia city success story, Hong Kong, is sharply different in many ways and prides itself on its differences from its rival to the south. The issue now is how Singapore fares in a changing context after the passing of its founder.

The “soft authoritarianism” which Lee enforced was of its time and its place. He had a project and was, as he put it in his memoirs, confident that he would “have the last laugh” over his detractors. But that project was one which he was able to build from the ground up, starting with a post-colonial territory with no natural advantages except for its position on a major global trade route, and the aspirations of its population.

He was helped by the very fragility of the place, and the need to struggle in a disciplined manner to survive and succeed. Most of the city’s population were ready to accept the Lee Kuan Yew bargain – improving living standards (including plentiful public housing), stability, security and openness to the world in exchange for acceptance of a government which reserved the right to supervise nearly all areas of life down to the famous ban on chewing gum.

David Fuller's view

Here is a PDF of Jonathan Fenby's article.

I hope that Singapore is not one of a kind, at least in terms of governance and achievements, although it may be.  It succeeded because Lee Kuan Yew was a brilliant observer of geopolitical events, and learned from them.  He was also tough because he had to survive not only regional power struggles but also Japanese occupation during the last years of WWII.  Incorruptible, he also tolerated no corruption from others.  He prized higher education for all with ability and ambition.  He was a roll model in terms of personal standards and promoted equal opportunity for multiracial Singaporeans.  His decades in power ensured that he really was the father of Singapore.

In that role, he civilised Singapore.  In my earliest visits to the country in the 1970s, I remember seeing signs on lampposts warning of a S$100 fine for spitting.  A decade later, the signs had disappeared because there was no further need for them.  Similarly, chewing gum left on pavements became a scourge in Singapore’s humid climate, sticking to shoes and being tracked in doors.  Yes, some Singaporeans complained mildly about the authoritarian rules, but generally approved of them after travelling to other countries.